Daaaah Whoosh said:
Yeah, I guess that's the main problem I had with Halo 4: everything up to that point let me believe my own story, and then 4 comes around and says "No, the Humans have always been the best species in the galaxy, and they always will be, and the Forerunners are just humanoid aliens, nothing special there, oh and Master Chief has the social development of a six-year-old." Letting questions go unanswered is a great thing in science fiction (remember the midichlorians?), and unfortunately Microsoft has more love for money than they do a great story that inspires the imagination.
The Halo lore always seemed pretty solid and well defined to me, sure the forerunners were a bit "mysterious" but none more than any other "precursor civilization" (except perhaps The Precursors from Jak and Daxter...heh), but I wouldn't say the lore was set up to have much room for you to make your own backstory.
I mean you can if you /want/, but 4 didn't seem to be any more "solid" in how the lore was than 1-3, it just introduced new elements. Master Chief...has always been quiet and essentially empty as far as a personality goes, 4 is hardly the game to start ragging on him for it. Heck, Chief had more personality in 4 than the others I'd say. As far as I can see, the Forerunners were always going to be hyper advanced aliens, it even felt like that's what everyone thought they were In Universe too. This isn't a universe with Gods and Magic.
I dunno, someone could likely correct me on a few of thse things, I'm limited to the games. But with something like Halo I think basing stuff on just the games is okay, as that is it's primary outlet, and the story presented in them shouldn't rely on stuff thats in the expanded universe without explaining it in the games.
evilnancyreagan said:
The context here certainly implies that Jesus is sourced from a work of fiction and his return is merely a literary device crafted with the sole intention of invoking narrative drama.
It looks like you're just looking to blast it for the sake of it. He clearly does not state or imply that Jesus is ficticious, he just qualifies that by messiah he doesn't mean the typical Jesus imagary that's invoked by "Messiah", and more the literary trope of the sleeping Messiah, of which King Arthur becomes the better example.
If people get offended over this, that's their own insecurities and issues, not the writers, there's no religious agenda, no atheism pushing, just an article that invokes the similiarities in the stories of Jesus, King Arthur and Master Chief. Regardless of whether or not you think Jesus is real, a story is still a story, regardless of the events in them being real or not.
Even so, you can still point out similarities in "real" events to those of narrative structure in stories, because they're usually based on existing stories of events to begin with.
Besides, his beliefs could well be that Jesus /is/ ficticious, but we start arguing which religion or none of them is true, we're liable to start a war.
Thats it! Noone say anything to anyone about anything ever again, because someone out there is bound to get offended by just about anything. If someone genuinely gets offended by this, they need to grow a spine and reassess their priorities.